Trashing the Dress: The anti-bridal wedding photography of John Michael Cooper

Trashing the Dress: The anti-bridal wedding photography of John Michael Cooper

My Joan of Arc 2006 by John Michael Cooper

John Michael Cooper is not your standard wedding photographer. Credited with starting the 'trash the dress' trend (in which just-married brides destroy their dresses for a dramatic photo), his portfolio of high-fashion bridal photography contains the standard bread-and-butter wedding portraiture alongside more experimental images. He got his start in the fast-paced environment of destination-based companies in Las Vegas, including the chapel at the Treasure Island hotel. After starting his own company with wife Dalisa in the early 2000s, Cooper decided to start shooting experimentally in the conservative world of wedding portraiture, which not only quickly gained him a cadre of clients looking for something different, but also shattered established business models in the staid world of bridal photography.

The name of his photography company is Alt F Photographers. Pressing alt-f on a keyboard will provide you the iconic ƒ typography as in ƒ-stop, but for Cooper, it's meant more as a reminder that he always needs to push himself and his photography to excel beyond the ordinary.

'It sort of sets the tone for me as to what I am trying to do and accomplish,' he says. 'A lot of people think I don't do a lot of the regular wedding shots, but I struggle with the same stuff that everyone else in this business does. You have to give clients what they expect, especially for their families, but you still build that other time in to play and do something creative for yourself. Some people think I just get to run amok and do whatever I want, but I don't, I still have to take care of my clientele.'

Comments

artistically appealing in a number of ways but how many B&Gs will order such 'exquisite' and unusual photos? how much are they willing to pay for them, and are they ready for the lengthy shoot, which requires a lot of time spent on lighting, posing, test shots and so on? even professional models getting paid for this type of work may complain and quit in the middle of the shoot! and i'm sure the post processing of such masterpieces of artistry is going to take much longer than usual for whomever editing them ...

Here is my wedding dress picture from 2009. It was taken in the old boiler room of a Victorian swimming bath, and is still in this state. The swimming bath itself was long since converted to a dance hall. The picture was selected for the annual Royal West of England exhibition in Bristol, England, and I was pretty pleased!

how happy was the bride with a photo like this?don't be mistaken though: i like the picture from an artistic POV but how many brides and grooms are out there willing to pay dearly for photos of this nature to be taken of their wedding?to the best of my knowledge, majority of B&Gs demand cliche shots they see everywhere in their friends and relatives wedding albums and they want a 'repeat' with only one 'new' item: themselves in the same shots instead of their friends and relatives!

in fact, this 'trash the wedding dress' image here, which has clearly been done using tricks in post rather than endangering the bride's life and wellness (ending up in bride's death in at least one case already!) is more successful than most others, and truly innovative as well as 'having a message' too ... :)

but i'm also getting the impression that things have changed a lot among folks! in the old times and up to the recent past, B&Gs would ask for only some 'unusual fun' images when going a little off the main path ... i never thought they would agree with 'revolutionary' ideas too, much less demand it!

I have no real views either way on the morality or otherwise of the concepts or the images - I just don't think they're very good. Technically proficient, but conceptually very contrived and a bit "corny".

If the bride and groom want this sort of thing, then I guess it's bugger-all to do with us or anyone else.

Excellent series! Yes, I hate modern wedding photos - all of them too banal, to cliche and none worth to keep or frame and hang on the wall. Exceptions are so rare that do not even worth to mentioned. Yes, I did some and yes I have my own album that I never opened since wedding. And of course YMMV.

I find it very easy to imagine someone on dpreview being inspired by these shots and trying some of them without realizing the risks. It really would be tragic if there was another death trying to get a shot like #3. I think this dpreview article should include a serious warning.

Weddings are about the newlyweds, in the sense of "look at us, we are so special that we'll come up with some contrived nonsense you never saw before, we hope." It's the product of the narcissistic, exhibitionist, FaceBook generation.

Great wedding photography is about telling stories that last generations, stories that bring a joyous tear to the eyes of Mum and Dad, amaze and delight your yet unborn children and grandchildren.

Most cutting edge work is not about stories but about confection and bride bragging on Facebook, it sells and keeps photographers fed, but its ultimately shallow and short term, These pic represent arty, technically competent and creative work, not wedding photography, but good.

There is nothing wrong with placing couples in non traditonal situations but it should have something to do with the reality of those getting married, for example a Guy who is a super keen skateboarder being shot in a skate park with his bride and mates behind in skate gear makes sense, it would have context and meaning, or say the Bride and Groom in an industrial kitchen if the Bride is a chef of super keen foodie, or a couple on a mountian top if they are both avid bushwalkers and met via that activity.

...considering how long marriages last today, at least the bride will have some "artful" perpetual photographs that she can enjoy with friends. I've never been a fan of the "trash the dress" concept where the dress is destroyed.

Teila, must say you do have a point there, I once photographed one of my Cousins weddings, they didn't even last the length of the honeymoon and I ended up with a bunch of pics with nowhere to go. I don't really get the trashing the dress thing either, my wife kept hers, for many years she tried it on each anniversary and still has it as a keepsake but to each their own.

Interesting in terms of art, but as a real photo shoot with a bride and groom I think it's just people making something meaningful into something needlessly epic. Everything has to be epic. You can't watch a sporting even without every video or commentator acting like every second you watch is some world changing event. In the case of a wedding, doing something like this for anything other than a few art shoots is taking meaning and turning it into nonsense drama. It looks like this isn't a common occurrence or even the main thrust of any given shoot, but I still don't get why real people would do this.

****To all those haters, who say his work is poor, etc. Your just out of touch, Cooper really is an innovator, the firey trash the dress shot for example is from 9 years ago, seriously think of photos 9 years old and show me something from then that was this well done. How many photographers out there have tried to immulate his trash the dress themes. To the haters, look at your photos from 2006, and post them, to show us how great your work was.

Nine years? From a digital viewpoint eleven years gets you the Canon 1DsMK2 and Hasselblad H1D. Before that you'd have to look at film, but large and medium format with reversal film (transparencies) could match today's IQ from many years back.

I don't need to do that! I just don't think his work is great! I don't like the trend and what it stands for. I surely don't mind someone developing new themes, but a wedding and marriage used to be something meaningful.

I find it pretty sad that anyone who shares their opinion that they don't like this style, or these images is branded with the label 'hater'!That seems to be a popular trend these days -- and a pretty childish one I might add.

Interesting to note the use of the term "haters". It appears to have become the favourite word from those who want to shut down any opinion with which they disagree, much like the overworked and often inaccurate "raaacist".

Don't get dramatic. Cooper has interesting work. Know that people have been lighting dresses on fire and photographing such before I was knee high to a grass... (never mind); the point is that, for most of us who've been shooting brides-in-dresses in unusual places for more than a decade, 'emulating' Cooper hasn't even crossed our minds.

Most photographers have their own style & concepts to wrestle with. To be fair, (though I'm no "hater") here's an "oldie" shot of mine from 9 years ago (look at those poofy sleeves!). Taken with my old Nikon D2hs, 4mp, around midnight, 17-35 f2.8 lens at f5, 32mm, 1/60th if you care about superlatives. Great? No, not by any means- but fun as always. :)

Many photographers were shooting burning dresses, dresses in the mud, sand, food, etc.. Like many others, I prefer simple shots. The "innovation" you speak about was done decades... before 2006.

I don't like any of them and not because of the mood or dress trashing. Composition, setting, and lighting is not my taste. last one (15) for example. spotlight lighting against barn. Photograph screams artificial lighting.

Before I got a speedlight and went through the trouble of understanding the proper usage, I considered using flash in photography as "cheating" and only used "natural light" or aka "i didn't alter the scene".

have the chance to be creative in some situations really opens up. don't be stalinistic and forbid only because you might not be capable of doing the same.

No, I think he's referring to "taste" as a quality attributed to those who find value in things that are uplifting, thought provoking, or of some true value beyond shock or meaningless exhibitionism. It's possible to see something and have a gut reaction of "oh, that's cool" and then look at it for a while longer to finally reach a completely different conclusion. The dress on fire is a very cool effect, but after a second look to see if I find it valuable or meaningful I pretty much never want to look at it again. Would someone buy that and hang it in their home? Would a business use it? Gallery? Yeah, maybe an art gallery...they like all sorts of weird stuff. The shovel and the trunk? That's just trying to get a reaction, not make an impact with actual meaning or feeling or thought provocation. Beyond cool lighting and wild contrast, most of these images only have shock value, and two seconds later your can happily forget they exist.

Barty, as with most of human perception, the boundaries of these concepts are very subjective. You don't disagree with whether or not there is such a thing as good or bad taste, but instead how the OP defines it. Is there nothing that you find unequivocally lacking in any redeeming value as well as having qualities that make it objectionable, immoral, valueless, etc? I'd say that some of these images aren't necessarily in bad taste, but they have no value beyond cheap tricks or shock simply to illicit a reaction and in that case someone with the ability to discern value would lump them in with things that are an indication of poor judgment or "taste" in this context. There is always a cultural aspect that has to be understood to evaluate whether something reflects good or bad judgment, but I think most of us here understand the meaning of wedding dresses and fire and a shovel. I'm pretty sure a strong argument could be made that at least some images are in poor taste.

@Joseph - I didn't explicitly disagree with the concept of "good taste", so let me be clear - I don't think it is possible to construct any concept of Good Taste that is impervious to argument, because the definition is always a matter of subjective aesthetic judgment. There are things in the world that I think are arguably - but not unequivocally - harmful and destructive, but these things lie outside the consideration of aesthetics, which is what we are talking about when we discuss "taste". I can say that a given thing does, or does not, not accord with my own tastes. I can not say that a given thing represents "good taste" or "bad taste".

I absolutely believe aesthetics can cause harm. A barrage of photoshopped and nearly naked women on magazine covers is damaging to a young female's perception of her value or the value her culture places on her various attributes. I suppose an image of a bride in a trunk with a groom standing next to a shovel doesn't necessarily cause harm, but it does imply harm is being done which can still be objectionable aesthetically. I don't think you can divorce the idea that everyone thinks their taste is justified or reasonable from the concept, so maybe you should point out what you find in good taste rather than arguing against the concept in the first place. If you're going to comment on a subjective topic then maybe offer an opinion and a solid basis for it about why you think something is or is not of value. Anyway, I think what you were implying is that you disagreed or maybe just pointing out the ego? Not much point to that unless you're just looking for a pointless argument.

@Joseph - perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. I do not accept that there is any such thing as unequivocal "good taste" or "bad taste". I can discuss a particular image and describe what appeals to me, or affronts me, but it is meaningless to describe it as being in either "good taste" or in "bad taste", because that judgement is *always* equivocal.

Yeah, but if someone believes an image is in good taste when a vast majority of people see it as being in bad taste...I'm going with the judgment of that person having "bad taste" as being correct. Maybe not in every way, but if you have bad taste in one way then you do have it to some degree. I'm going with the OP: most people have bad taste which is why the world is the mess it is.

@Joseph - a particular image or piece of furniture etc is viewed by 2,000 million people. Half of them (1,000 million people) regard the piece as being 'in good taste', the other 1,000 million people regard it as being 'in bad taste'. Does the piece represent "good taste", or "bad taste"?

I'm very surprised by a lot of these negative comments. What's the big deal about trashing a wedding dress? The images are well-done. Obviously not everyone is going to feel the same about weddings or wedding photos. He had some fun with it. If people want to pay him to shoot them, who cares if they're not what many of you are expecting they should be? At least a pinch of original thought went into them, instead of the thousands of replicas gracing millions of wedding albums across the world. Marriage is not all bliss. Nice to see some artistic honesty at last. :D

There has been a lot of *** said about the one where the bride died. The photographer obviously didn't do a risk assessment and the bride went along with it. That doesn't mean that all TTD shoots are going to be risky. Even the water ones should be OK if precautions are taken. The main danger is getting tangled up and panicking. I did one with a synchronised swimmer and the dress tended to float because of the air trapped in it. The water that soaked into the dress is actually neutrally buoyant so the dress actually weighs less in water..

Also, I don't really have a problem with the idea of trashing something that served its original purpose and doesn't really have much 2nd hand value (other than sentimental). People complain about the idea of destroying a wedding dress but what happens to all the unsold discontinued dresses that some manufacturers don't want discounted?

@qaz123:You've hit the nail on the head. If there wasn't risk involved then you wouldn't need to do a risk assessment or take precautions. Yes getting tangled is the main danger, and with some wedding dresses, that's about 10 meters (30ft) of fabric to get tangled in. The 2012 drowning wasn't an isolated incident. Google "trash the dress drowning" and there are quite a few. The most recent was a near drowning in May this year.

TTD photos can be done safely and with spectacular and beautiful results. I'm just saying that sometimes they're not.

@HB1969 :In the one in May, the reports claims she was dragged down by the dress but if you watch the video you can see the bride goes under and the dress stays on the surface. She then comes up under the dress. This was another one were the people involved did something stupid that happened to take place during a trash the dress stunt. If you jump off the side of a boat, you go under whatever you are wearing. I jumped off the side of a frigate during a drill once where one of the guys didn't hold onto his lifejacket. He hit the bottom and his lifejacket stayed on the surface!

Is it _supposed_ to be happy? For most of humanity's long history, it has been a union borne of necessity. Sure, it can, and has been happy, but marriage neither requires, nor does it often result in happiness.

Now, to address the photos. I assume (I could be wrong), that the couples in the photos _wanted_ to trash the dress. I also assume that the photos, the shooting, and the results, made them happy, at least for a while. It may make for a great memory.

or maybe these shots were performed as part of an art project? I really don't get the idea of "wedding photography has to look and feel like that" and disregard anything else.Personally, i really hate the standard images you see for most weddings. You know, the typical style, mediocre photographers copy just because it has to be done like that.

Since when has photography folly any rules? last time i checked i wanted to take and edit astonishing photos. not ISO approved ones.

We may as well say "trash marriage." The darkness in most of these images evokes melancholy. Love and partnership isn't generally associated with sadness.I'm all in for finding new ways to express the traditional event of marriage, and if a couple wishes to have images portraying marriage's darker side, they can write the check and have their way.

Well he does NOT say he did NOT set her on fire. Also just an fyi: I have heard enough stories about people who have actually done such a thing for various reasons.

And judging by the photo which seems very realistic some idiot is bound to copy him without a composite.

And yes I have myself used fire for various things but then again I am a magician as well as a hobby photographer. I do it with illusions, some people go to far with fire like idiots resulting in pain.

As a magician you are a bit too gullible. Again, he did not set the bride on fire, not because I'm saying it but simply because it's absolutely crystal clear that it's a composition. Seriously, wake up.

HE did not set her on fire that is correct, the dress was put on fire however for the composite AND idiots are going to think this is not a composite and try the same thing, he is making people have stupid and dangerous ideas just like idiots on train tracks.

@ ThatCamFan, then I guess we should stop airing horror films, the news, fictional crime dramas and so on in order to prevent stupid people from potentially copying them. Most photographers are not dumb enough to set their subject on fire, and even if they were, I'd hope that the subject is smart enough to say "No way, you're not setting me on fire for a picture".

Interesting and creative work. Perhaps some look a little too retouched... and what's with the blown highlights on number 6?Some of these look dangerous as well.. hopefully those who disregard safety won't give this kind of photography a go. I remember an article several years ago about a bride drowning when the photographers asked her to get into the water (river? ocean?) and the weight of the soaked dress swept her away.

Clearly these images suggest that perhaps he wandered off the set of a Tim Burton movie and started shooting weddings. I suppose if weddings and the macabre were truly simpatico, this would be the next big thing. But they're mostly not.

I have done few weding photography, and dont like it at all.... But these i kind of photography its cool. Traditional weding photography its boring but with these kind of psycodelic clients, it has to be fun shooting.

#3 and 9 are Excellent ones. I would really like to see some foggy, dark and dirty forest enviroments for these kind of photos.

Some are really nice, nr 2 for instance but some did not work for me. Creating a mood in a photo is not easy, so well done for achieving that. The ones taken in front of the barn does not tell a story (unless I didnt see it) and should be left out of the collection.

"..It's fun...Until someone gets hurt"A couple of years ago a bride drowned in the rapids not far from our city while shooting this kind of images.The photographer and her, never thought that the dress, immersed in the water, was going to get so heavy.

Love 14, love love. I think most people are this site lean towards the technical side of photography and not the artistic side. It's an image that is being made, not a copy of what reality is at the moment the shutter is opened.

Technically, pictures are pretty good, however they probably reveal serious psychological problem of Mr John Michael Cooper.Fire, dirty shovel and kelpie at the wedding? Mr. John Michael Cooper had, I think, a very difficult childhood. It would be interesting to create a psychological portrait of the Author.

people always have to find that argument of flaw in some other ones work, may it even be a weird statement like "... probably reveal serious psychological problem..."

the only psychological problem I can spot here is not the photographer, who is creative with his medium. Now you blame him for doing his job? because he did it not the way you expected him to? I am really mad right now!

@kreislauf: each work is a reflection of the mind of its creator: the Mona Lisa is a manifestation of the personality of Leonardo da Vinci, the theory of relativity demonstrates the mind of Albert Einstein etc. Why do you think that photographs taken by JMC does not describe his personality? Or do you think that all people should only glorify the work done by JMC (or similar)?JMC can take pictures, but I can draw conclusions, right?

@Orcio14surely not what i ment. one should not glorify anything. or fall to the other extreme. that was my point!

to subject an artist by only one piece of his creation of art or phase in his creativite expression is like stamping a dog as vile only because it bit. conttext, my lad, context.

also, strong thesis that i would oppose. Mona lisa is a manifestation of the personality of da vinci? maybe true in a philosophical way. it sounds very vibrant. i am the last to disrespect art, but sometimes a picture is only an function of a situation. and should not be over-interpreted.like the mona lisa or the theory of relativity. for some reason, these topics are huge conversation starters in pop culture. and not soo mystical for people from their respective fields :)

Photoshop. GoPro. Every once in a while a product emerges that defines a category. And sometimes, it vanishes just as quickly as it arrived on the scene. This week's Throwback Thursday remembers the Flip, the pocket camcorder everyone had – until they didn't.

After a popular Facebook teaser and some studio portrait samples, Godox has finally officially released the Godox A1 smartphone flash and flash trigger. Cheap, versatile and innovative, color us intrigued.

Canon’s EOS 5D Mk IV has won the European Imaging and Sound Association’s Professional DSLR of the Year award, making this the third year in a row that the brand has beaten Nikon to the top spot in the professional camera category.

Edward Weston was one of the most influential photographers of the 20th century, and in this episode of Advancing Your Photography we learn the extreme technique he used to capture one of his most famous still life photos.

Venus Optics has announced the price and delivery date of the second lens to join its Zero-D line up: the 15mm F2 for Sony’s E mount. A lens they've dubbed, "the world's fastest 15mm rectilinear lens for full-frame."

The Canon EF 35mm F2 IS USM is an understated jewel of a lens, and one that we've enjoyed on a variety of cameras since its release almost five years ago. Its relatively small size and image stabilization make it a versatile tool for a variety of photography - check out our sample gallery.

You don't need a fancy studio or tons of gear to capture the kind of classic product photography you see in magazines. In this video, Dustin Dolby shows you how to do it with just a couple of speedlights and some know-how.

The Minolta MC Rokkor-X 40-80mm F2.8 is unlike any zoom lens you've probably ever seen. Instead of a helicoid, it uses a gearbox, and because of this it's still one of the sharpest zoom lenses out there.

If you're looking to switch to Sony, the company's new limited-time "α trade up" promotion can snag you up to $500 + trade-in value towards a brand new a9, a7 II, a7R II, or a7S II when you hand over your DSLR or mirrorless camera.

The Google Camera app exclusive to the company's own Pixel phone has been unofficially ported to other Android devices. If you're willing to take the risk of installing, you can now use features like HDR+ on the Galaxy S8, LG G6, OnePlus 5, and more.